Schipske Asks City Attorney To Look at City of San Rafael Ordinance on Wireless Towers -- Take Into Account Health Concerns

I have asked the City Attorney to review whether or not Long Beach can adopt an ordinance similar to the 2005 one enacted by the City of San Rafael which regulates wireless towers/facilities and takes into account health concerns regarding emissions from these towers.

Plain and simple, the Federal Communications Commission which regulates cell phone and telephone systems throughout the US limits what a local government can do regarding the placement of these towers and dishes even though more and more residents are concerned about the possible health care risks associated with high frequency emissions.

The City of San Rafael has an ordinance, however, that does address these concerns by setting up a system that actually monitors and tests these wireless facilities every three years to determine if they are in compliance with federal standards concerning emission levels.

Couple that ordinance with the one adopted by the City of Palos Verdes which the courts upheld that limits these towers/facilities on the basis of their aesthetic impact, the City of Long Beach should be able to craft an ordinance that addresses both of these key issues.

I have been working with the City Attorney on this issue for some time because of the requests from wireless companies to place these towers in residential areas -- something the City of San Rafael does not allow.

A council agenda item calling for a moratorium on these cell towers until the City can enact a new ordinance will be forthcoming.

See below for the City of San Rafael's city code on this issue:

Wireless communication facilities.

A.

Purpose. This section establishes standards to regulate the design and placement of towers, antennas, and other wireless communication transmission and/or reception facilities (hereinafter called wireless communication facilities) on public and private property to minimize the potential safety and aesthetic impacts on neighboring property owners and the community. To fulfill this purpose, this section is intended to:

1.

Establish development standards to regulate the design and placement of wireless communication facilities so as to preserve the visual character of the city and to ensure public health and safety, consistent with federal law and Federal Communication Commissions (FCC) regulations.

2.

Acknowledge the community benefit associated with the provision of wireless communication services within the city.

3.

Encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than construction of additional single-use towers.

B.

Permits Required. A use permit and an environmental and design review permit shall be required for new wireless communication facilities pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 14.22, Use Permits, and Chapter 14.25, Environmental and Design Review Permits, consistent with the provisions of this section. Minor additions or modifications to existing permitted facilities that will not significantly affect radio frequency radiation (RFR) emissions nor cause increased visual impacts may be exempted from the requirements of a use permit by the community development director. In such case, the minor addition or modification shall be subject to an administrative-level environmental and design review permit.

C.

Application Requirements. Applications for a use permit and an environmental and design review permit shall be initiated by submitting the following information:

1.

A completed application form, signed by the property owner or authorized agent, accompanied by the required fee. Application procedures and processing timeframes shall be in accordance with state law requirements and the procedural guidelines established by the community development director.

2.

Six (6) sets of materials and plans showing the following information:

a.

Project Description. A complete project description, including the following information on the proposed wireless communication facility:

i.

Number and sizes of antennas and approximate orientation,

ii.

Other technical information regarding transmission equipment such as maximum power output and frequencies,

iii.

Copy of FCC license,

iv.

Heights of proposed facilities,

v.

Equipment enclosure type and size,

vi.

Materials and colors of antennas and any equipment enclosure,

vii.

Description of towers or other structures necessary to support the proposed facilities, and

viii.

Description of lighting, signage and landscaping proposed.

b.

Site Plan. A site plan on a twenty-four-inch-by-thirty-six-inch (24″ x 36″) sheet of paper and an eleven-inch-by-seventeen-inch (11″ x 17″) reduction, including the following information:

i.

Vicinity map,

ii.

Parcel lines of the subject parcel,

iii.

Contextual map showing structures on adjacent properties,

iv.

Location and names of adjacent streets and drives proposed to serve as access to the facility,

v.

Topography of the subject parcel and location of any drainages within or adjacent to the site,

vi.

Location of all existing buildings, structures, utilities, parking areas, significant trees and other natural forms, or other features which might affect the proposed use of the property,

vii.

Setbacks of proposed structures and improvements from the property lines,

viii.

Location and height of required cuts and fills for the grading of land and any retaining walls proposed,

ix.

Location of proposed development including all towers, structures, buildings, utility line extensions, driveways or roads, and parking areas,

x.

Schematic drainage and grading plan, and

xi.

North arrow, graphic scale, the applicant's name, assessor's parcel number and date prepared.

c.

Elevations. Elevations set forth on a twenty-four-inch-by-thirty-six-inch (24″ x 36″) sheet of paper, and an eleven-inch-by-seventeen-inch (11″ x 17″) reduction, including the following information:

i.

Elevations and sections of the site displaying site topography, proposed facilities including towers, equipment shelter and existing buildings,

ii.

Wall, roof, tower and antenna materials,

iii.

Fencing, air conditioning units and outdoor lighting, if any,

iv.

Rooftop or building features such as vents, chimneys and antennas, and

v.

Building or tower height as measured from natural grade.

d.

Photo-Simulations. Photo-simulations of the proposed facility from key public viewpoints based upon consultation with city staff. Photo-simulations shall display existing and proposed views in an eleven-inch-by-seventeen-inch (11″ x 17″), or larger, format, with the dates shown when the base photo was taken.

e.

Landscape Plan. A landscape and irrigation plan, showing all existing and proposed improvements, location of proposed plantings and type of landscape material, for proposed ground-mounted facilities including equipment cabinets.

3.

Alternative Site Analysis. An alternative site analysis is required if the proposed facility is:

a.

Located within any district other than a commercial or industrial district;

b.

Located within fifty feet (50′) of a "Less Preferred Location," as defined in subsection (G)(2) of this section;

c.

Lacking stealth design; or

d.

Not co-located with an existing approved facility.

4.

Future Co-Location. For new towers or monopoles, a signed statement that the applicant, or its future successors, will cooperate with the city to allow future co-location of antennas at the proposed site if it is approved.

5.

Story Poles. Story poles or mock-ups may be required if deemed necessary by the community development director.

6.

RFR Study. For the sole purpose of verifying compliance with the FCC radio frequency emission standards, an emissions report which measures the predicted and actual, if available, levels of electromagnetic field radiation emitted by the proposed facility operating alone and in combination with radiation emitted from other existing or approved facilities that can be detected at the proposed facility site. Radiation measurements shall be based on all proposed (applications filed and pending), approved, and existing facilities operating at maximum power densities and frequencies. It is the responsibility of the applicant to determine the location and power of existing facilities.

7.

Noise Analysis. A noise analysis for emergency generators or other noise-producing facilities.

The alternative site analysis shall be presented in a narrative form with supporting maps and other graphics that identify the other site locations considered and rejected in favor of the proposed site. The applicant shall provide supporting reasons why the alternate sites were infeasible and rejected and why the proposed site is superior from a technical or other standpoint to the others considered.

D.

Review Authority. Authority over the provisions and requirements of this section shall lie with the following official bodies or officials:

1.

Community Development Director. The community development director or his or her designee has the authority to:

a.

Exempt applications for minor additions or modifications to existing permitted facilities that will not significantly affect RFR emissions nor cause increased visual impacts from the requirement for a use permit, and take action to approve, conditionally approve or deny an administrative-level environmental and design review permit;

b.

Refer applications to the design review board for advisory review and recommendation; and

c.

Refer applications to the planning commission for review and action.

2.

Design Review Board. The design review board shall serve as an advisory body to the planning commission, zoning administrator or community development director on all use permit and environmental and design review permit applications with the exception of applications for minor additions or modifications to existing permitted facilities, as described in subsection (D)(1) of this section, which are subject to an administrative level environmental and design review permit.

3.

Planning Commission. The planning commission has the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny use permit and environmental and design review permit applications for the following:

a.

New ground-mounted facilities (towers or monopoles);

b.

Any facility, which in conjunction with existing facilities in the area, exceeds seventy-five percent (75%) of the FCC standard for public exposure; and

c.

Any application referred to them by the community development director.

4.

Zoning Administrator. The zoning administrator has the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny use permit and environmental and design review permit applications for the following:

a.

Co-located facilities on an existing approved structure; and

b.

Building-mounted facilities.

5.

Appeals. All decisions of the community development director, zoning administrator or the planning commission can be appealed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.28, Appeals.

E.

Exemptions. The following types of facilities are exempt from the provisions of this section:

1.

Facilities for which applications were approved by the city and/or building permits were issued on or prior to the effective date of this section shall be exempt from the requirements of this section, except for the requirements for validation of proper operation, monitoring, and removal of abandoned facilities, and for proposed modifications to existing facilities;

2.

Facilities owned and operated by public agencies; and

3.

Proposed facilities that would be located entirely within a building and only serve that building.

F.

Public Notice. Notice of a public meeting or hearing for a wireless communication facility shall be given in accordance with Chapter 14.29, Public Notice, except that a public notice shall be mailed to all property owners within one thousand feet (1,000′) of any proposed facility that includes a tower or monopole.

G.

General Location Standards. The most desirable location for new wireless communication facilities is co-location on existing facilities or buildings. All wireless communication facilities shall be sited to avoid or minimize land use conflicts in compliance with the following standards:

1.

Preferred Locations. The following list of preferred locations for wireless communication facilities is in order of preference from most to least preferred: Industrial, public or quasi-public, commercial and office zoning districts are the preferred locations.

2.

Less Preferred Locations. The following less preferred locations are listed in order of preference from most to least preferred: Parks or open space and residential zoning districts.

3.

Avoid Residential and Open Space Areas. New monopoles or towers shall not be located within residential, designated open space or conservation areas unless sufficient technical and other information is provided to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning commission or zoning administrator that location in such areas is appropriate, subject to the following findings:

a.

The location of the proposed facility site is essential to meet the service demands of the carrier and no other alternative co-location, existing development or utility facility site, or type of antenna support structure is feasible. This shall be documented by the applicant providing a list of the locations of preferred technically feasible sites, the good faith efforts and measures taken by the applicant to secure these preferred sites, and the specific reasons why these efforts and measures were unsuccessful.

b.

The use of a monopole for the proposed facility by itself or in combination with other existing, approved, and proposed facilities will avoid or minimize adverse effects related to land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety.

4.

Avoid Significant Buildings and View Sheds. Wireless communication facilities shall not be located on historically or architecturally significant structures unless visually and architecturally integrated with the structure, and shall not interfere with prominent vistas or significant public view corridors.

H.

Design Requirements.

1.

Co-Location. All new wireless communication facilities service providers shall co-locate with other existing and/or planned new wireless communication facilities whenever feasible. Service providers are encouraged to co-locate with other existing facilities such as water tanks, light standards and other utility structures where the co-location is found to minimize the overall visual impact of the new facility.

2.

Stealth Design. All wireless communication facilities shall have a stealth design to screen or reduce visual impacts and blend the facility into the existing environment. Examples of stealth design are facade-mounted antennas located within architectural features so they are screened from view, or an antenna design that mimics architectural features so they appear to be a part of the building design, or facilities with colors and materials to minimize visibility such as a non-reflective finish in a color compatible with the surrounding area.

3.

Ground-Mounted Facilities. All new ground-mounted wireless communication equipment, antennas, poles, dishes, cabinet structures, towers or other appurtenances shall be:

a.

Co-located on existing structures to the extent feasible. Co-location is preferred over new monopoles or other towers erected specifically to support wireless communication facilities unless technical evidence demonstrates that there are no other alternative sites or feasible support structures or the use of a monopole or tower would avoid or minimize adverse effects related to the view shed, land use compatibility, visual resources and public safety.

b.

Sited to be screened by existing development, topography or vegetation to the extent consistent with proper operation of the wireless communication facility. Additional new, irrigated vegetation, or other screening, may be required as a condition of approval:

4.

Roof and Building-Mounted Facilities. Roof and building-mounted antennas and equipment shall be:

a.

Sited and designed to appear as an integral part of the structure or otherwise minimize their appearance. Placing roof-mounted antennas in direct line with significant view corridors shall be avoided. Where appropriate, construction of a rooftop parapet wall to hide the facility may be required.

b.

Integrated architecturally with the style and character of the structure or otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible, antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly-created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. To the extent feasible, building-mounted antennas shall not be located on the front, or most prominent facade of a structure, and shall be located above the pedestrian line-of-sight.

c.

Whenever possible, base stations, equipment cabinets, back-up generators, and other equipment associated with building-mounted antennas shall be installed within the existing building or underground. If this is not feasible, the equipment shall be painted, screened, fenced, landscaped or otherwise treated architecturally to minimize its appearance from off-site locations and to visually blend with the surrounding natural and built environment.

5.

Signage. No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be displayed on any wireless communication facility except for small identification plates used for emergency notification and legally required hazard warnings.

6.

Waiver Request. A waiver from these requirements may be requested if the applicant can show, by substantial evidence, that compliance with a particular requirement is technologically infeasible or would result in an unreasonable interference with signal quality. The applicant will be required to prove that there are no feasible alternatives to the waiver request.

I.

Development Standards.

1.

Height. The maximum height of building-mounted antennas shall be in compliance with the height limitations for the zoning district in which they are located. An exception to antenna height may be granted by the planning commission or zoning administrator if the RFR exposures and aesthetic quality of the proposed facility are found to be acceptable. Antenna structures, including towers and monopoles, and mechanical screening features related to wireless communication facilities, shall be regulated subject to Section 14.16.120 of this chapter.

2.

Setbacks.

a.

Towers, guy wires, and accessory structures, including equipment cabinets, shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. Towers and support structures shall be located a minimum of two hundred feet (200′) or at least three (3) times the height of the tower, whichever is greater, from existing residential units or vacant residentially zoned property.

b.

Building-mounted facilities may be permitted to extend up to two feet (2′) horizontally beyond the edge of the structure regardless of setback requirements through the application review process, provided that the antenna does not encroach over an adjoining parcel or public right-of-way or otherwise create a safety hazard.

J.

Lighting. Any exterior lighting shall be manually operated, low wattage, and used only during night maintenance or emergencies, unless otherwise required by applicable federal law or FCC rules. The lighting shall be constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.

K.

Landscaping. Wireless communication facilities shall be installed in a manner that maintains and enhances existing vegetation and provides new landscape material to screen proposed facilities through the following measures:

1.

The emphasis of the landscape design shall be to visually screen the proposed facility and stabilize soils on sloping sites. Introduced vegetation shall be native, drought tolerant species compatible with the predominant natural setting of the adjacent area.

2.

Existing trees and other screening vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed facility shall be protected from damage both during and after construction. Submission of a tree protection plan prepared by a certified arborist may be required.

3.

All vegetation disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with compatible vegetation and soils disturbed by development shall be reseeded to control erosion.

4.

Appropriate provisions for irrigation and maintenance shall be identified in the landscape plan. The city may impose a requirement for a landscape maintenance agreement as a condition of approval.

L.

Noise. Wireless communication facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes noise. Noise reduction shall be accomplished through the following measures:

1.

Wireless communication facilities shall operate in compliance with the noise exposure standards in San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13, Noise.

2.

Normal testing and maintenance activities shall occur between eight a.m. (8:00 a.m.) and six p.m. (6:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, excluding emergency repairs.

3.

Backup generators shall comply with the same noise standards referenced in subsection (L)(1) of this section and shall only be operated during power outages, emergency occurrences, or for testing and maintenance.

M.

Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR).

1.

RFR Standards. Wireless communication facilities operating alone and in conjunction with other telecommunication facilities shall not produce RFR in excess of the standards for permissible human exposure as adopted by the FCC.

2.

RFR Report. Applications for wireless communication facilities shall include a RFR report, prepared by a qualified expert, which identifies the predicted and actual (if available) levels of RFR emitted by the proposed facility operating by itself and in combination with other existing or approved facilities which can be measured at the proposed facility site. Measurements for RFR shall be based on all proposed, approved, and existing facilities operating at maximum power densities and frequencies.

N.

Post-Approval Requirements.

1.

Validation of Proper Operation. Within forty-five (45) days of commencement of operations, the applicant for the wireless communication facility shall provide the community development department with a report, prepared by a qualified expert, indicating that the actual RFR levels of the operating facility, measured at the property line or nearest point of public access and in the direction of maximum radiation from each antenna, is in compliance with the standards established by the FCC for RFR.

2.

Three-Year Review. The city will notify all owners or operators of wireless communication facilities every three (3) years that they shall participate in the measurement by the city of the RFR of the facility. The requirement for a three-year review shall be made a condition of approval for all wireless communication facilities. The city will contract to perform the testing with a qualified expert and the owners or operators shall bear the proportionate cost of testing for its facility. The city will establish procedures for:

a.

Scheduling the three-year review period;

b.

Hiring an expert to perform RFR testing;

c.

Collecting reasonable fees; and

d.

Enforcement actions for nonpayment of fees.

3.

Notification of Abandonment of Use. The owner or operator of an approved wireless communication facility shall remove any abandoned facilities or restore the existing approved use of a facility within ninety (90) days of termination of use.

4.

Changes Affecting RFR. Any operational or technological changes to an approved wireless communication facility affecting RFR exposures shall be reported promptly to the city, including any change of ownership. The city may require new RFR testing within forty-five (45) days of notification.

5.

Changes to FCC Standards. Owner or operators of all approved wireless communication facilities shall make necessary changes or upgrades to their facilities in order to comply with any newly adopted FCC standards for RFR. Upgrades to facilities shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after notification of the changed FCC standards and the owner or operator shall notify the city in writing that the upgrades have been completed.

(Ord. 1823 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2004).

Tell Tom Reeves to Stop His Plans That Will Disrupt Solar Grand Prix

I have sent the following press release to the news media upon being sent an email written by City Prosecutor Tom Reeves:
Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske issued the following statement after being sent an email being circulated by City Prosecutor Tom Reeves who is calling for a rally of GOP candidates in front of her neighborhood office at the very same time she expects more than 300 students and their parents to be participating in the 2010 Solar Grand Prix scheduled for over a year at the very same location. Mayor Bob Foster is expected to make remarks at the Opening Ceremonies of the Solar Grand Prix which she and her 5th District Solar and Sustainability Taskforce organized.

The email Schipske received states:

From: Tom Reeves [mailto:tomreeveslbc@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:37 PM
To: TomReevesLBC@gmail.com
Subject: Exercise Program

Calling all Hands

The Los Angeles County Young Republicans, the Long Beach Young Republicans, the Long Beach Area Republican Party and our Republican candidates are organizing a walk this Saturday. If you are interested in helping elect Republicans and you are willing to walk a precinct to drop literature on doorsteps – then reply to this email and let us know. You can also call 562.443.8633 and leave a message.

We will be meeting at El Dorado Park on Saturday at 10:00 am. We will be in front of the Community Center at El Dorado Park which is located a half a block South of the intersection of Studebaker and Spring on the East side of Studebaker. That’s 2800 Studebaker Road. This best part of this location is it is right in front of Gerrie Schipke’s District Office!! You don't have to bring anything except a willingness to spend a couple of hours walking in Long Beach.

Please join us elect Republicans === it promises to be a beautiful day for a walk!

Thank you

Tom Reeves, Tim O’Reilly, Mike Hedges, Jana Shields

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Schipske stated: "I am disheartened that our City Prosecutor Tom Reeves would stoop so low in his attempt to campaign by scheduling a rally of his fellow Republican candidates in front of the very location where an educational and environmental event has been scheduled for over a year. The Solar Grand Prix is involving over 300 area students, their teachers and parents. These students have worked for over 3 months in designing and building the solar cars they will race. They do not deserve this petty, partisan disruption. I call upon Mr. Reeves and my opponent Mike Hedges, who claims he detests partisan politics, to find another venue and leave these kids out of their silly campaign games."

Kids and the Law

Please feel free to download the publication to the right of this blog post: Kids and the Law. It was compiled by the California State Bar -- of which I am a member.

I try to get these to the high schools -- but this is an easier way and this way parents can receive the publication.

I have received some comments about Long Beach having a juvenile curfew law so I though I would provide some back up information on other laws that impact parents and their kids.

LB Rosie the Riveter Foundation Receives $46,000 Grants

LB Rosie the Riveter Foundation Receives Grant From Long Beach
Navy Memorial Heritage Association –
$46,000 to be used for “interpretive panels” and “compass rose”

The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Foundation has been selected as a 2009-2010 grant recipient by the Long Beach Navy Memorial Heritage Association and to receive a $46,000 grant to complete the Rosie the Riveter Interpretive Panels and Compass Rose project.

The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Foundation is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization established to preserve the history of Long Beach during World War II during which thousands of women worked at local plants and factories, helping to build the planes and ships that were needed. The Foundation has been raising funds to provide historical interpretive signs and artwork in the Rosie the Riveter Park located at Clark Avenue and Conant Street in eastside Long Beach.

“We are honored to have been selected for this grant,” says Gerrie Schipske, President of the LB Rosie the Riveter Foundation. “These funds will enable us to complete the first phase of historical signs and artwork which will be donated to the City of Long Beach for use in the Rosie the Riveter Park.”

Schipske explains that the interpretive signs will visually depict the history of Long Beach’s involvement in World War, the women who were called “Rosie the Riveter” and the military aircraft they produced – such as the B-17 bomber – which is credited for winning the air war.
The Rosie the Riveter Park is also including a “compass rose” which is a replica of the ones used on the air fields so that pilots could calibrate their compasses.

“The ‘compass rose’ that will be painted in the park will be exactly the same as the one which was in the Administration Building lobby of the US Naval Station in Long Beach,” adds Schipske.

When completed, the Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Park will feature a walking path with interpretive signs, a guide by cell tour, a memorial to those men and women who served in the military during WWII, and displays showing the contributions of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) and the American Gold Star Mothers. Trees, a rose garden, memorial benches and historic lighting will be located throughout the park.

“Long Beach will become part of the national effort to preserve this period of history and one of only two parks in the United States dedicated to the women who worked so hard on the home front.”

Curfew for Youth During Spring Break

Subject :	CURFEW ENFORCEMENT – SPRING BREAK 2010 *** A REMINDER TO PARENTS ***
Contact :	Media Relations Detail (562) 570-5273

The 2010 Spring Break for Long Beach students is fast approaching and schools will be closed the week of April 5th, and students will return to class on April 12th.

The Long Beach Police Department would like to remind parents that Section 9.58.010 of the Long Beach Municipal Code states: "It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years to remain in or upon any 'public place' as defined in Section 9.02.090, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the following day."

The Long Beach Police Department takes curfew violations seriously. Our experience has shown us that children who are on the street after curfew are more likely to become victims of violent crime, and also are more likely to become involved in criminal behavior.

We are here to remind parents that it is important for them to know where their children are at all times and ensure they get home safely before curfew. The Long Beach Police Department will strictly enforce the curfew statutes through the spring break week. Additionally, we have adjusted our staffing at the Youth Services Division to accommodate any enforcement action.

Curfew laws are there to protect children/youth and keep them safe, and Long Beach police officers will enforce this law with your child’s safety in mind. By working together, we can help provide your child/youth a safe and enjoyable spring break.

Why Alice in Wonderland is an Analogy of Politics

I love the movie "Alice and Wonderland" that is in the theaters because I believe it is a great analogy of just how crazy politics is right now.

For instance, the Long Beach Taxpayers Association who are opposed to any tax increase, just recently endorsed Mike Hedges for the 5th Council race despite the fact that the incumbent (I) not only opposed Measure I but stopped it from being passed because I would not be the vote that would have lowered the threshold for the number of votes needed to pass.

But here's the truly crazy part: Mike Hedges stated several times at the press forum last night that yes, he would support another parcel tax if it was written okay. On the other hand, I continue to express my opposition to tax increases.

LB Taxpayers endorsement is questionable. Just because I won't yell "off with public employees' heads" as they would like me to do -- they appear to have chosen to support a candidate who will vote to increase property taxes. This is curiouser and curiouser, to quote Alice.

5th District "Debate" Set for Tonight at 6pm

The Long Beach Press Corps is sponsoring a 5th Council District "Debate" tonite at the El Dorado Restaurant at Spring and Studebaker. Doors open at 6pm and because the venue is small, you might want to come early to get a seat.

Welcoming home a hero to the 5th District

After spending the morning and early lunchtime at the CAMEO event at the LB Convention Center, I had the privilege of being invited by the mother of a returning Army Pvt to come to their house in the 5th district and to welcome him home.

Wow. What an honor. Pvt. AJ Ayala is only 20 years old but he comes home from Afghanistan as a decorated soldier with a Purple Heart. His parents put together a welcome home celebration at their home and even brought the Millikan High School band out to greet him on a street lined with yellow ribbons on the trees.

I shook Pvt Ayala's hand but he reached out and said "we give hugs at this house."

On Tuesday, April 6 in City Council at 5pm, I am asking the entire Council to welcome Pvt. Ayala home with a hero's welcome. The public is invited to attend. Pvt. Ayala and his family will be there.

Come to a 1940s Era Dance.

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske invites you to step back into the 1940's when Long Beach was working on the home front to support the troops in the war.

Come visit the Smithsonian "Produce for Victory" Exhibit made possible by The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Foundation and The Historical Society of Long Beach.

The closing event of the exhibit will feature USO style entertainers and dance music! Food and much more. You are invited to come in costume.

April 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm - 9 pm at The Historical Society of Long Beach Gallery, 4260 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90807.

Tickets are $40.00. Proceeds go to The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Foundation and The Historical Society of Long Beach, both non-profit organizations.

Response to LBPOST column on why 5th District is getting more infrastructure repairs

LBPOST -- it would have only taken a moment to call me to get the information your article lacks.

First of all the 5th District is the largest district -- 11.5 sq. miles which means we have the most streets, the most sidewalks and the most city trees. So we have the most infrastructure needs.

Unlike prior councilmembers, I have worked with Public Works to bundle repairs in an area so that it wasn't done on a shot gun approach. That approach has been inefficient and the costs of sending crews from one corner of a district to another is silly. That is why the Ranchos got their sidewalks done and we are moving north and west (something I go over in great detail at my state of the city). That is why one area gets their trees trimmed instead of here and there. And because I brought saw cutting to the city, we are able to fix many more sidewalks at a lower cost than we have ever done in Long Beach. (You can see the video on my city website: www.lbdistrict5.com).

Now as to the major streets being fixed in the 5th with stimulus monies -- Spring goes from Orange County to the west border of the City and is a major thoroughfare. Los Coyotes dissects the east part of the city south to north. These projects have been slated for repair for several years. They were shovel ready and have a tremendous impact on the traffic.

Regarding the lack of an alley behind Euclid -- that has been a problem for 40 years. I have worked on it (albeit quietly) for 4 years I have been in office. Those homes have been ruined because of the flooding and the city wouldn't do anything about it. Now they are fixing it.

I also have a serious problem with streets raised up to 3 and 4 feet because of stone pine tree roots. Those problems have been there for many years and I am pushing the City Attorney and the Public Works department that they need to be removed because they are hazards.

I also constantly walk and inspect my district and leave constituent service cards with residents and email the problems via Blackberry. I also have a sophisticated computer tracking system that monitors when we call in a problem so we can follow it up to get it done. I was the first to place an on line service request form that can be accessed 24/7 and so we are on top of the complaints.

My job is to advocate for my residents in the 5th District. If I hadn't been doing that you'd be the first to blast me for not doing my job.

Gerrie Schipske

5th Council Districts Gets Big Share of Fed Street Improvements -- and Largest Share of City Sidewalk Monies

The federal government has agreed to fund (@ $15 million) the reconstruction of 10 major streets -- including installing handicap access to ramps to meet current federal ADA guidelines.

The 5th Council District is getting 3 (of the 10) streets fixed:

• Spring Street from Clark Avenue to the east city limit
• Los Coyotes Diagonal from Outer Traffic Circle to Studebaker
• Wardlow Road from Clark Avenue to Woodruff Avenue

Other good news: The 5th Council District is receiving the largest share of City sidewalk monies this budget year. More than $600,000 will be spent on fixing or replacing broken sidewalks in the 5th District. This amount represents twice the amount ever budgeted for the 5th Council District and over turns the long standing policy adopted by the former councilperson that sidewalk monies should be divided evenly.

Thanks to my colleagues on the council for agreeing that these monies should be budgeted based upon need!

On upcoming posting, I will put on line the list of the many sidewalk locations that will be fixed this year. It is impressive but we much to do.

Catching up on my medical board work and other items

Ah, the weekend. Started this am up in North Long Beach at Holly and Dan Pressberg's house which is a historical landmark. The food was great and quite a crowd of candidates and electeds.

Got to chat with first district candidate Jana Shields (whom I had not met before) and said hello to Gabrielle Holt who is circulating a petition to make the state legislature part-time. (No, I didn't sign but I always enjoy talking with her. She's a very smart person.)

Also on the scene as Mr.Wielenga --formerly known as Dave Wielenga of the now defunct District Weekly. Bill Pearl of LBReport.com. Art Levine from Straight Talk (still haven't been invited to talk on his show cause I get you really have to be straight...)

City Attorney Bob Shannon, James Johnson and Jack Smith. Not to mention several people who want to take Laura Richardson out...of Congress.

Back home and then to Long Beach City College to talk to students who were attending a Habitat for Humanity workshop. Drive around Lakewood Village dropping off campaign signs then back home to the computer.

Numerous cases on line to review as a member of the Medical Board of California. As the regulatory board we have to review proposed discipline when it is appealed by the physician. We also actually hear cases in person (just went to Sacramento two weeks ago to hear a case.)Although I am the only (and first Registered Nurse) to be appointed to a Medical Board in the US, I am serving as a public (non physician member)... so I represent the public. I take this work very seriously because we are deciding on whether or not a physician should retain his or her license to practice or to be placed on probation with a list of conditions. And I get paid the grand sum of $100 when I attend a medical board meeting.

PS I have convinced the medical board to finally hold a meeting in Long Beach which they will do in November.

Check Out Code Enforcement Cases In Long Beach

You can click on this link http://www.longbeach.gov/cd/neighborhood_services/code/current_open_cases.asp and find out how many code enforcement cases are currently open in the city -- the addresses and what has been done to date.

Often constituents turn in an address to code enforcement and then complain that "nothing is done." Due process and notice is required and the offending address is allowed to fix the problem without being cited...as long as they fix it.

Checking this list will tell you exactly what is going on.

City Council Votes to Regulate Medical Marijuana Collectives

The Council on a 5-4 vote approved the first reading of an ordinance that will strongly regulate when and where a medical marijuana collective can locate in Long Beach. At my urging, the Council agreed to expand the buffer zone between these collectives and schools to 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet for high schools (at the urging of Councilman O'Donnell).

Additionally, at the advice of our City Attorney and our Chief of Police (as well as the District Attorney) the council requires these collectives to actually grow marijuana on site in order to operate. This keeps drugs from being transported in by drug cartels and it follows the Attorney General's guidelines.

Some of my colleagues were upset about the requirement to grow at the collective? Really, folks. Where do you think these places were getting their supplies if they weren't growing it as a collective???? They were getting marijuana from drug dealers.

The voters of California approved law that allows a collective of "patients" needing medical marijuana to grow and distribute medical marijuana for the use of only those members of that collective. By requiring that they do so, Long Beach is following the state law and making certain that the phony "collectives" go out of business. The ordinance also gives our law enforcement the tools they need to make certain the law is followed.

Councilman Andrews' Heart is in the right place

Ok. So constituents have contacted me about Councilman Dee Andrews' plan to offer job training and other services to soon to be released prisoners. I do honestly believe that Dee's heart is in the right place and he understands that if we don't train those returning from incarceration they are more than likely to return to crime and be imprisoned at the taxpayers' expense.

Nevertheless. This isn't a good idea for Long Beach. Not right now. Not when 14.5% of our population in unemployed and I suspect many more underemployed. The City doesn't have the money nor the resources, nor should this be on our list of things to do.

The City should explore whether or not to sue the State of California and/or the County of Los Angeles if either level of government prematurely releases prisoners into our City. It's bad enough that the State had raided our coffers and continues to dump parolees into communities, but to let prisoners get out early when the governor and legislature refuses to do their jobs is unthinkable.

To use City resources to provide services for the prisoners isn't appropriate. Let's spend what resources we have on preventing our youth from committing the crimes that is putting their elders in prison.

Need I say more???

Excuse me -- Can I just say -----

There were probably many, many times this year
when I may have disturbed you, troubled you,
pestered you, irritated you, bugged you, or got on
your nerves with all the e-mails I send.

So today, I just wanted to tell you...









Suck it up, "Cupcake!"

'Cause there are NO changes planned for 2010 !!!

Tea with Rosie

The Historical Society of Long Beach was packed yesterday with women and men eager to listen to re-enactments of the oral histories of women who worked on the home front during World War II.

Tea with Rosie was the creation of the wonderful staff and volunteers at the Historical Society as one of several events to draw the public to see the Smithsonian exhibit: Produce for Victory. The exhibit is a joint project with The Long Beach Rosie the Riveter Foundation and will be at the Historical Society until April 4th.

The closing of the exhibit will be celebrated with a USO style dance and entertainment from the Swing Dolls.

We need to regulate marijuana collectives

Like it or not, state law (voted in by the voters) allows collectives to be formed to dispense marijuana for medicinal use only.

Using that state law, many, many collectives have opened in Los Angeles County and specifically in Long Beach. As a consequence of no local law regulating these collectives, they have managed to open and operate without business licenses.

The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance that allows the City to regulate these collectives and to restrict them to non residential areas and away from schools. Additionally the ordinance would not allow the importation of marijuana from outside the city. Marijuana could not be grown except in areas zoned for growing agricultural crops.

Unless we approve the regulation of these collectives, the City will be unable to make certain that only those qualified under state law operate.

This ordinance gives law enforcement the tools they have needed to make certain that the state law allowing medical marijuana is not exploited for illegal purposes.

WASP Barbara Erickson London Receives Congressional Medal From President Obama

Today in Washington, D.C. the surviving members of the WWII Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) received a Congressional Medal of Honor. These women flew the airplanes that were produced at defense plants during WWII -- often risking their lives. 38 died in the line of duty.

Because of the shortage of male pilots during the war, these women who were already civilian pilots learned how to fly every plane manufactured. They were not recognized as part of the military and received minimal pay and no benefits. When they died, their families had to pay for their funerals.

Before the war ended, the military disbanded the WASP because of complaints from male pilots returning home that women should not be flying the planes. It was not until the 1970's that Congress finally recognized these women and granted them honorable discharges and veterans status.

Among the most famous of the WASP was Barbara Erickson London who at the age of 23 commanded the women at the Long Beach Army Airfield. Erickson received an Air Medal for her service during the war -- the only WASP to receive the award.

Check out the US Defense Dept website on these women and the information concerning the Congressional Medal of Honor.

You can also check out my two books on Long Beach history that include information about the WASP and Erickson during WW II: "Rosie the Riveter in Long Beach" and "Early Aviation in Long Beach" -- both published by Arcadia and available at any local bookstore.

Also check out the historical display at the Long Beach Municipal Airport on the WASP.

Council Approves Ordinance to Require Buffer Zone Around Schools for Medical Marijuana Collectives

The City Council agreed with my request that we require that medical marijuana collectives not be allowed closer than 1,000 feet from all elementary and middle schools in Long Beach and 1,500 feet from high schools.

This is a big change from what the council voted on last month -- which allowed the collectives as close as 500 feet from elementary and middle schools and 1,500 from high schools.

I contacted the Long Beach Unified School District and asked that it indicate to the City Council their support of the 1,000 foot buffer. This buffer conforms with federal and state laws that require schools to have a drug free zone of 1,000 feet. While some may argue that medical marijuana is allowed for use, the federal law still considers marijuana a controlled substance which is illegal to sell.

Another important part of the ordinance is the requirement that all marijuana cultivated for medical use must be grown in the city in order to comply with federal and state law prohibiting the transporting of marijuana other than for a reasonable distance. There will be requirements regarding where marijuana can be grown.

The ordinance acknowledges the state law allowing cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes while giving our law enforcement the tools they need to properly enforce the law.

Because the collectives currently in Long Beach have not been legally operating, this ordinance will allow collectives to apply for a business license and in turn be reviewed by the police in order to determine that the collective is following the law.

NOTE: See the Attorney General's Guidelines on Medical Marijuana on this blog. Our ordinance follows these guidelines.

Thank You USS Dewey and Friends

The 5th District received a gift of green as 50 crew members of the USS Dewey joined 70 others from the neighborhood, El Dorado Park South Association, Neighborhood Services and my staff in planting 45 trees in El Dorado Park South last Wednesday.

It is a Navy tradition that with a commissioning of a ship, the crew does a project in adjoining areas. They picked Long Beach -- specifically the 5th District -- and through a grant obtained by the El Dorado Park South Association they were able to plant the trees.

This is great. I am working with Walmart to get some work done on our duck pond area.
Our next Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands clean up with tackle a restroom and picnic benches.

Spring Street Being Spruced Up With Federal Stimulus Funds

I have been receiving emails from residents who: a) are concerned about where the city got the money or b) think that the repair along Spring Street from the westside of Long Beach to Orange County is unnecessary or c) think that the street needed to be fixed but not the curbs and gutters and storm drains.

So to clarify:

• Spring Street needs a structural repair -- the street, the curbs, the gutters and the storm drains. Water pools in several part after rains.
• The repairs are being totally funded out of federal stimulus funds.
• Spring Street is a major street in Long Beach -- going from the westside to Orange County. It is heavily traveled.
  
• Long Beach had the project on the drawing board for many years so it was ready or as they say "shovel ready."

Other issues:

• Yes, there are other streets in Long Beach that need repair too and we are applying for funds for all of them.
• No, the federal stimulus funds weren't available for residential streets -- only streets that are non-residential and have higher useage.
  

TED-X Long Beach

Last night the Council approved my agenda item calling for the City of Long Beach to obtain a license (free of charge) for a Long Beach TED-X conference.

For the past two years, the Long Beach Convention Center has been the venue for TED.

According to its website: "TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design.

"Since then its scope has become ever broader. Along with the annual TED Conference in Long Beach, California, and the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford UK, TED includes the award winning TEDTalks video site, the Open Translation Program, the new TEDx community program, this year's TEDlndia Conference and the annual TED Prize.

"TEDx was created in the spirit of TED's mission, 'ideas worth spreading.' The program is designed to give communities, organizations and individuals the opportunity to stimulate dialogue through TED-like experiences at the local level.

"At TEDx events, unique talks given by live speakers combine with TEDTalks videos to spark deep conversation and connections. TEDx events are fully planned and coordinated independently, on a community-by-community basis."

A TEDx event is being planned and hosted by numerous cities (such as Manhattan Beach, Monterey, Boston, San Francisco and New York) as a way on a local level to:
1. Educate and inspire
2. Bring together innovators and explorers
3. Encourage the responsible use of resources and talents
4. Foster an environment of sharing and embracing passions.

A TEDxLong Beach would give the residents of the City of Long Beach the opportunity to experience and to participate in this innovative way to build a stronger and better community.

FAQ:

• The annual TED conference in Long Beach charges $6,000 a person to attend and limits who can attend.
• There is no charge for a community to receive a license from TED to organize a TEDx event.
• More and more cities across the U.S. and around the world are holding TEDx events in their communities.
• TEDx events are usually free of charge to attendees.
• TED provides a step by step video and website outlining how to organize and conduct a TEDx event in our community at http://www.ted.com/pages/view?id=343
• In every community that hosts a TEDx, the event is "sold out" within days of announcement and sparks on-going community discussions beyond the event.

Business license tax exemptions for artists

I raised some questions last night at council as to why we would waive business licenses for artists while so many small businesses are struggling in the city.

• The home business license is $198 a year.
• We don't have a definition of "artist."
• We don't know how many home businesses or artist businesses this waiver would cover.
• We still would need businesses to register with the city so that we don't have a proliferation of businesses operating without licenses.

I have a home business license because I am a writer and when I sell my books I have to be licensed as a business and I have to pay sales tax. The 5th Council district has a large number of home based businesses --because quite frankly it is the small business that is creating employment right now.

The arts are important to a community. But so is business and I don't want the city encouraging one type of business over another. Either give all small businesses a break on business licenses for a year or don't single out one type of business.

Agenda Item on City Manager Precludes Doing Anything More than an Evaluation: Brown Act Requires Public Disclosure of Votes Taken in Closed Session

It's unfortunate that as the press runs stories about the Council going into closed session next Tuesday to evaluate the City Manager (which is required in his contract), the press fails to remind readers the basics of the Brown Act which requires that items to be taken action on need to be specifically stated and that pursuant to the Brown Act any vote taken in closed session must be announced by the City Attorney when the Council returns to open session.

Why are employee evaluations allowed to be conducted in closed session? The court has stated:

[T]he underlying purposes of the 'personnel exception' are to protect the
employee from public embarrassment and to permit free and candid
discussions of personnel matters by a local governmental body."

If the Council agenda sent to the public states: "Pursuant to Section 54957 of the California Government Code regarding Public Employee Evaluation: City Manager" then all the City Council can do is an evaluation. To go beyond an evaluation the agenda item would have to state: "Public employee discipline/dismissal/release."

Evaluation of City Manager Should Be Done Properly

The local press is running articles on the upcoming evaluation of the City Manager, Pat West and the revelation that the President of the Long Beach Police Officers Association thinks the City Manager should be fired and that the Long Beach Firefighters Association thinks he shouldn't be fired.

Residents, employees and their representatives are certainly entitled to their opinions. But under the City Charter of Long Beach, the decision to hire and fire the City Manager is vested solely in the City Council.

It is also the responsibility of the City Council to evaluate the City Manager on a regular basis so both he and the council can measure if the City Manager is doing the job he was hired to do. The International City Management Association (ICMA) has identified the three major roles of a City Manager as managerial (supervising City activities and employees), policy making (making policy decisions and policy recommendations to City Council) and political (advocating and winning support for various policies, coalition building, and public relations—but not supporting candidates or parties).

The Long Beach City Charter outlines the powers of the City Manager and gives him wide discretion on how he focuses his efforts. So unless the City Council has established specific goals and objectives it is impossible to measure performance objectively.

I spent several years teaching students at CSULB Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration on how to become city managers -- so I am more than familiar with the process by which city managers should be evaluated as recommended by the ICMA:

• The evaluation process will be enhanced if both the entire Council and the Manager are involved from the start in developing the criteria and agreeing on them.
• It is essential that the City Council clearly define goals and objectives for the City Manager.
• The City Council, the City Manager and department heads should provide evaluations.
  
• Before the Council makes a final decision about any action as a result of the evaluation, or make any final statement as a Council about the Manager’s performance, it is important to discuss the results of the evaluation with the Manager first.
• A Council that is serious about evaluation should understand that its performance often affects the Manager’s performance.
  
• The Council should ask the Manager about how the Council’s performance has enhanced or hindered the Manager's performance.

There are some serious problems with the City Council going forward on an evaluation of the City Manager: while we have evaluated City Manager West before, we have not clearly defined goals and objectives we want him to accomplish, nor have we ever asked for feedback from his department heads, nor have we asked him about how our performance has enhanced or hindered his performance.

The Council can fix the evaluation process by setting goals and objectives, getting feedback from department heads and analyzing whether or not it is the council's responsibility if the City Manager has failed or succeeded.

No. I won't discuss the City Manager's evaluation in the press.

A reporter from the Press Telegram left me a voice mail yesterday asking me to comment on a rumor that several councilmembers were planning on voting to fire City Manager Pat West next week when we review his annual evaluation.

I didn't return the call because I don't think it is appropriate for employers (the City Council) to discuss a personnel matter with the press. Since I have not read the evaluations from other Councilmembers, I have no idea what they feel about extending the City Manager's contract. I'll find out in closed session and if the Council takes any action, it will be announced to the public by the City Attorney.

LBPD Arrest Suspect in Slaying -- Victim Dumped in 5th District

The Long Beach Police Department have arrested a 17 year suspect in the slaying of a male whose body was found near Vuelta Grande and Los Arcos.

It has not been disclosed how the body of the victim (not from Long Beach) wound up in East Long Beach.

The fast arrest is one more reminder of why it was important to restore funding for detectives.

Cell Phone Tower at Studebaker and Wardlow

A meeting of neighbors adjacent to the church site at Studebaker and Wardlow where a cell phone tower was proposed to be cited, was well attended for a Saturday morning -- @ 45 people.

Residents are concerned about the potential emissions from cell phone towers and the fact that they are concerned that it might lower property values because there are many people who do not want to live near these towers. Several families spoke about their children already having health problems and they did not want to bring in something that there is debate about whether or not it is safe. A firefighter spoke on how he had measured the emissions on these types of towers and that there were several schools within 1500 feet (which is the recommended distance from a cell tower and a school).

The representative of the company which installs the towers was very informative but the consensus of those in attendance was that the neighborhood doesn't want it adjacent to their homes.

The cell tower is being proposed to expand coverage for T-Mobile. Other carriers could pay to attach their equipment. The church would be paid @$1,000 a month for the cell tower to use space on its property.

Several cities are placing a moratorium on placing cell towers because of the growing concerns of residents about the potential impact.